09.25.2009 6:57 pm
Only one vice left to tax
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
It was reported recently that the government is considering a tax for high sugar products such as soft drinks and candy. Sugar would then join existing “sin taxes” imposed on alcohol and tobacco. This makes the only vice left untaxed being sex. I actually look forward to a “sex tax” for two reasons. First, the added cost for the drug companies may force them to eliminate TV commercials for Viagra, Cialis, KY, Trojan and Extenze that are very uncomfortable to sit through with my grand kids. Secondly, I will now qualify for a tax refund.
John Crow
South County
Sugar already has. It’s called rum.
John… Actually, there was a short story written about this very topic. I read it in the early ’80s, so I’m sure it was written in either the ’70s or ’60s. In the story, EVERY sex act was taxed — even autoeroticism.
Wait, you forgot the quarter pounder tax, fried food tax, you could tax according to the fat content of a certian cut of meat. Wait until the govt gets ahold of your health care and access to your bank account (according to the health care bill I’ve read). Bend over and spread your cheeks.
`Bend over and spread your cheeks.’ — big John
Trying to get under the wire before that sex tax kicks in?
No sex, no procreation; no procreation, no new heard to pay our current tax bills / debt.
Does this tax only apply if you actually participate in sex, or does it also include fantasizing about sex? Is one taxed for having sex by one’s self, or must a partner be involved? Does partner include both human and inflatable? Is internet porn to be taxed? That would certainly erase our national debt. What about sex in movies, does the film maker pay the tax, or the viewer? What if I see Paris or Brittany or Lindsay on TV, does that count? Is it a graduated tax depending on what technique one uses or the level of satisfaction, or maybe according to age?
I don’t know John, but I don’t think I’m gonna be able to afford this tax.
Democrats would tax a pigs squeel, if they could ever catch one.
It probably would squeal before they got through with it and let it go.
John,
I agree with you on the TV commercials for the sex drugs and products. The same pharmaceutical Companies that claim they charge so much for drugs is because the years of research required really must charge so much to cover the cost of their commercials that run on TV all day/every day.
The commercials are so pointless. It takes a Doctor to write a prescription, not a regular guy off the streets to go to a Pharmacist and order some Viagra. How about some “Plavix” for your clogged arteries, or some “Cymbalta” for your depression.
They also have their drug reps. catering lunches for the Doctors and their staff so they will prescribe their drugs over their competitors. Between the commercials and the catered lunches who gets screwed?
WE THE CONSUMERS!!